The word is out that Chelsea Clinton is with child, making the favorite Democratic presidential nominee a soon-to-be grandmother.The headlines were inevitable — "Grandma Hillary" — followed by the similarly crucial question: Will being a grandmother help or hurt Hillary Clinton's chances in the 2016 election?Note: We do not yet have another Clinton presidential candida...

Unfortunately, our society is one in which older members of society face discrimination and are put out to pasture well before their time. I hope Ms. Clinton's choices will give her grandchild an opportunity to grow up in a world in which age and experience are something to be respected and valued instead of tossed out like a worn out old blanket.

It's incredibly sexist to wonder if Hillary becoming a grandmother would affect or interfere with her being president. After all, how many grandchildren did Mitt Romney have when he ran? I don't remember these questions being asked then.

thinkingahead wrote:For Chelsea, her husband, and Bill and Hillary, this is a special time.

Again the conflict and confusion of the left.

Chelsea Clinton is pregnant. Isn't the left's answer to pregnancy abortion. Being with child is a wonderful thing if you are the right Democrat. If you are a lesser Democrat abortion is on demand.

Here again we are told to do as the left says, not as the left does.

Oh by the way free OBAMAcare contraceptives are available.

Facepalm.

As this sort of pettiness and hatred becomes more and more common on the right, no one should be surprised if they continue to lose at the polls, even with the flood of all that corporate/dark money....

How about for every for offensive, perverted thing a white Republican male says about babies, birth control and abortion, they are required to adopt and raise a baby that is being born to someone who is unfit to raise it (emotionally, financially, too young, or raped, or denied birth control and sex-ed by the twisted Christian Republicans, etc.).

Interesting but standard fare from our witless news media. One problem is the comment about Reagan, his age was constantly brought up during the 1980 Presidential election. Perhaps you are one of the twit milleanial generation thus clueless to real history or in college and thus occupied with drugs and sex at you wonderful liberal arts college? Hey, you steroetype why can't I?

Bellwood wrote:Interesting but standard fare from our witless news media. One problem is the comment about Reagan, his age was constantly brought up during the 1980 Presidential election. Perhaps you are one of the twit milleanial generation thus clueless to real history or in college and thus occupied with drugs and sex at you wonderful liberal arts college? Hey, you steroetype why can't I?

Who are you talking to? If it's the author, Kathleen Parker, I think she'd be pretty amused by your stereotype that she's a sex and drug obsessed 20-something twit at a liberal arts college.

How about for every for offensive, perverted thing a white Republican male says about babies, birth control and abortion, they are required to adopt and raise a baby that is being born to someone who is unfit to raise it (emotionally, financially, too young, or raped, or denied birth control and sex-ed by the twisted Christian Republicans, etc.).

Obama is not a republican(and only half white), but he did say something offensive about babies. Why you're taking that out on me, I have no idea.

If Mrs. Clinton really wants the best for Mrs. Mezvinsky's unborn child, she will refrain from running for office, and support a constitutional conservative candidate who wants to restore freedom, family, vocation, community, and faith to the American scene... Kind of the exact opposite of everything Hillary Clinton has been doing her whole adult life.

Maybe her maternal instinct will kick in to protect the grandchild unlike the way it seems to have remained dormant while her own daughter was growing up.

Get-Real wrote:If Mrs. Clinton really wants the best for Mrs. Mezvinsky's unborn child, she will refrain from running for office, and support a constitutional conservative candidate who wants to restore freedom, family, vocation, community, and faith to the American scene... Kind of the exact opposite of everything Hillary Clinton has been doing her whole adult life.

Maybe her maternal instinct will kick in to protect the grandchild unlike the way it seems to have remained dormant while her own daughter was growing up.

Hypocrisy now is considered both hate and offensive speech to the left. Pregnancy is a wonderful thing, PERIOD.

I also realized yesterday that liberalism allows liberals to not be able to not assume responsibility FOR ANYTHING.

One of the criticisms to the Supreme Court's latest decision, is blacks school are some to the poorest schools in the country. Who is and has been in charge of education for thirty years, the left. The left assume zip, zero responsibility for their running the schools.

Most black schools are in inter-cities, who generally running inter-cities. Assume NO responsibility.

Having a child should be a exciting time in for all involved, however, along with the excitment comes responsibility, and which party allows for any responsibility to be ignore and done away with.

With the left it's always someone else fault. This is why it is so easy for the left to tell us what to do, while exempting themselves. They want us to be responsible, but not themselves.

TomFromTheNews wrote:It's incredibly sexist to wonder if Hillary becoming a grandmother would affect or interfere with her being president. After all, how many grandchildren did Mitt Romney have when he ran? I don't remember these questions being asked then.

Did you read the article?

The author acknowledged that point.

Obama understands his constituents perfectly. They don't care what he does to the Constitution, the economy or his "enemies," as long as he provides them with gay marriage, legalized weed and a recharged EBT card the first of every month.